Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2022 11:26:32 GMT -5
I was discussing Boyer not sure if you are replying to someone else?? No, I'm replying to you because you were the one - unless I'm mistaken - who said no way would Demps be the one left out. Is that not correct? One game does not a season make. I still don't think long term that is the direction that is taken. There are many things to flesh out including how many rotations Franklin ultimately goes for. It's still just the first game.
|
|
|
Post by taxidea on Aug 26, 2022 11:30:05 GMT -5
I agree, confusing. Could be he's suggesting Demps as a serving sub instead of Boyer. What I read Punzel to be saying is that when Hart is in, the lineup will be Izzy and MJ serving with Smrek and Robinson as their opposites, Orzol and Franklin on the left playing 6 rotation, Hart and Crawford at middle and GG at libero. And that's it. And when Hart sits out, Hart is in, the lineup will be Izzy and MJ serving with Smrek and Demps (or Wrobel) as their opposites, Orzol and Franklin on the left playing 6 rotation, Robinson and Crawford at middle and GG at libero. The only time Demps plays is when Hart sits out - which will, we hope, be less and less as time goes on - and only in the front row, no backrow attacking. Do I have something wrong there? Thatz what I got from it. Except, it could be Demps OR Wrobel, which I think is pretty significant. The only real unknown for me is whether or not GG serves. Edit: I think Sheff will want her to get as many serving reps as possible.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 26, 2022 11:36:36 GMT -5
No, I'm replying to you because you were the one - unless I'm mistaken - who said no way would Demps be the one left out. Is that not correct? One game does not a season make. I still don't think long term that is the direction that is taken. There are many things to flesh out including how many rotations Franklin ultimately goes for. It's still just the first game. You said Punzel clears up much. I agree, he does. And yes, things will undoubtedly change; when Bramschreiber comes back, for one thing. But one consequence of 6-2 and no Bramschreiber is that Demps' role is going to be quite limited. (Something I argued against with my advocating for a 5-2. Consideration of 5-2 might have gone away with Bramschreiber, because you need defense from the other two back row players when the third is attacking.)
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 26, 2022 11:54:24 GMT -5
How does anybody know all the facts. I do not believe what this VB player did is the exact same as what a FB or BB is allowed to do? Show me the facts. I doubt you are more privy to the facts more than Reed, McCaa, Sheffield, Loberg, Loberg's brother, Bramschreiber or her counsel. Yet you choose disbelief as if you do know more. This is where the NCAAs transparency about how decisions are made would be beneficial. They could show us the consistency, or at least pinpoint disagreements of fact. But they don't. While I don't know, that sends the signal that is because there is no real consistency. Only signaling to athletes to hold to some line that is obscure. As Punzel's article makes clear, they are discussing dropping the language about agents from the rules, yet they seem to be doubling down on SAs from women's sports, or from sports with less leverage than the revenue sports with professional leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Badger Alum on Aug 26, 2022 12:35:25 GMT -5
I don't know what happened here, but doesn't common sense say if you talked with an agent only (didn't accept any money), no harm / no foul. I don't know the NCAA rules but if I were in charge of this that would be the rule. No pay for play. Explore your options. Be informed. Get as many opinions as possible. That's a good thing. Just don't accept money. As long as you do that, your eligibility is fine.
Again, I don't know the NCAA rules but that is what I would hope they would be.
If the rules are otherwise, the NCAA is making a poor decision.
Regardless of this story, the NCAA is in trouble. Football is already setting the stage to eliminate NCAA governance. That could be (will be?) the first domino to fall. It seems to me the NCAA should be trying to figure out ways to help SA thrive. Otherwise, the NCAA might not survive.
|
|
mad1
Sophomore
Posts: 210
|
Post by mad1 on Aug 26, 2022 12:46:25 GMT -5
Wow! To your point, I’m convinced that Wisconsin conferred deliberately and in complete transparency, with the ruling body to ensure compliance. Thatz been the UW’s MO. So with that… - Itz clear that senior SA’s talking to various pro agents has clearly been a common and perhaps, accepted practice heretofore, by the NCAA. Speculating here, but the arbitrary nature of this penalty, I believe, is the NCAA drawing a new line in the sand - putting all concerned on notice, going forward. Unfortunately for the Badgers and especially for SB, “you’re it”. - Oh well. As robtearle has pointed out, SB now becomes the first casualty of the 2022 season. I’m sure that Sheff has already game-planned for this. Does anyone really doubt it? - She’ll still be able to practice and solidify her role on the team before the B1G matches come on the schedule. Shez a great talent and will certainly contribute to the team’s tournament run. - I don’t know if there’s an appeal in process, or even possible. In the mean…Letz Go!! I don’t know about a line in the sand. There is a ton of discussion about liberalizing the rules even more. Of course, it’s not volleyball that’s the catalyst. It’s football and men’s basketball, and pressure to let kids revert back to a college career even while going further down the path of exploring a pro career. If there’s anything I can say about the NCAA and its ability to hand down punishments, it’s to not be transparent, hold things close to the vest, make the NCAA prove any and all allegations they make, and then if they’re serious enough, dispute them in every way possible by every means possible, including appeals and legal action. It’s my guess Wisconsin tried to be forthcoming about what transpired. The NCAA saw a violation of their rules they could actually document and penalize, and so they did. I’m sure for them this feels like a slap on the wrist, but Sheffield being the boss he is, calls them out for their BS. Honestly I’ve fallen in love with Sheffield and his willingness to throw the turd on the table with his tweets. He has a tremendous amount of BDE. Does Sheffields wife know about this??
|
|
|
Post by Badger Alum on Aug 26, 2022 12:47:37 GMT -5
I'm probably getting off topic here, but my son is currently actively being recruited by NCAA schools and NAIA schools for men's volleyball. I'm completely perplexed by the NCAA rules for his recruitment. His official visits and what the NCAA schools are allowed to offer him (both financially and what the coach can do during his visits) are limited by NCAA rules. When we visit NAIA schools the rules are very different. They are much more athlete friendly. That is a recurring theme. NAIA is athlete friendly and NCAA is not. Why? That doesn't make sense. NAIA schools are allowed to offer more financially and the coach is allowed to do much more during the recruiting process with the athlete. This allows the athlete (in this case, my son) to get the know the coach, players and school so much better. So much better for the student athlete.
I've asked a lot of people I know and trust why this is and I get the same, recurring answer: the NCAA has draconian rules. The NCAA coaches we talk with bemoan the limitations put on them.
I'm just anti-NCAA right now. This situation with SB doesn't make any sense to me either. I don't understand why the NCAA does the things they do. Sorry for getting off topic. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by wiscvball on Aug 26, 2022 13:01:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greatlakesvballer on Aug 26, 2022 13:15:58 GMT -5
Love the comments from Devin Robinson and Skylar Fields.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Aug 26, 2022 13:55:35 GMT -5
If it is a 6-2 and Smrek and Robinson are the two opps, and Crawford and Hart are the middles, doesn't that leave Demps as quite often "the odd woman out"? From what he said, the only time Demps will be on the right is when Hart sits out a set and Robinson slides over from the right to the middle. Yeah. That whole bit was confusing if thinking about it from a 5-1 perspective, but now I realize Punzel's comments may come from watching them run a 6-2 in practice. Will they run Robinson from the RS instead of Demps in a 6-2 if Hart is in? I had assumed CC would see the bench if Hart and Robinson were both healthy enough to start at middle, but he seems to be implying CC would first name on the team sheet there - at least until Hart is back to full health. This all makes sense I think. I know everyone has wanted Demps to stay in after she starred in the final last year but I think all the signs have pointed to her getting squeezed out, and with Robinson and Smrek (who I think is probably a permanent RS, based on my assessment of her lateral movement being too slow for a middle) both getting reps at RS/Opp, it pointed to them both playing there in a 6-2. Also, if you're playing a 6-2 with both setters subbing out, there is no longer room for a serving sub - obviously, since there's not room for a DS as well. (Pitt used a serving sub but that's because Fairbanks played back row setter then switched to RS hitter when she rotated up front) So if Gulce does not serve, the only option is to have both middles serve for themselves (as is done in the international game). Despite all the maneuvers Sheffield did last year to get Izzy and Lauren serving in the two MB slots, I actually think we have a pretty decent set of servers at MB. Of course, this all changes IF you're willing to change to a 5-1 in the middle of the set - Sheff has always subbed aggressively with the knowledge that he might run out of subs at the end of the set, but if you do that in a 6-2 then suddenly you're not in a 6-2 anymore and it's a huge problem. Having Demps as a reserve 6-rotation Opposite for a sudden switch to a 5-1 could be a big deal in that case ... after all, a 6-2 is really just the first three rotations of a 5-1 done twice ... but I'm still not sure you allow yourself to be put in that situation very often.
|
|
|
Post by skinny on Aug 26, 2022 13:55:52 GMT -5
Shanel going scorched earth on NCAA while looking insanely hot doing it. Love that.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 26, 2022 14:01:04 GMT -5
Yeah. That whole bit was confusing if thinking about it from a 5-1 perspective, but now I realize Punzel's comments may come from watching them run a 6-2 in practice. Will they run Robinson from the RS instead of Demps in a 6-2 if Hart is in? I had assumed CC would see the bench if Hart and Robinson were both healthy enough to start at middle, but he seems to be implying CC would first name on the team sheet there - at least until Hart is back to full health. This all makes sense I think. I know everyone has wanted Demps to stay in after she starred in the final last year but I think all the signs have pointed to her getting squeezed out, and with Robinson and Smrek (who I think is probably a permanent RS, based on my assessment of her lateral movement being too slow for a middle) both getting reps at RS/Opp, it pointed to them both playing there in a 6-2. Also, if you're playing a 6-2 with both setters subbing out, there is no longer room for a serving sub - obviously, since there's not room for a DS as well. (Pitt used a serving sub but that's because Fairbanks played back row setter then switched to RS hitter when she rotated up front) So if Gulce does not serve, the only option is to have both middles serve for themselves (as is done in the international game). Despite all the maneuvers Sheffield did last year to get Izzy and Lauren serving in the two MB slots, I actually think we have a pretty decent set of servers at MB. Of course, this all changes IF you're willing to change to a 5-1 in the middle of the set - Sheff has always subbed aggressively with the knowledge that he might run out of subs at the end of the set, but if you do that in a 6-2 then suddenly you're not in a 6-2 anymore and it's a huge problem. Having Demps as a reserve 6-rotation Opposite for a sudden switch to a 5-1 could be a big deal in that case ... after all, a 6-2 is really just the first three rotations of a 5-1 done twice ... but I'm still not sure you allow yourself to be put in that situation very often. Remember, GG serving isn't just about the serve, it's also the floor defense after the serve. So even if Hart's serve or Robinson's serve is better right now than GG's, is the hit you take on floor defense afterward worth it? Because I'm pretty sure we can all agree that GG's back row floor defense is going to better that Hart or Robinson. :-)
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 26, 2022 14:23:26 GMT -5
I'm probably getting off topic here, but my son is currently actively being recruited by NCAA schools and NAIA schools for men's volleyball. I'm completely perplexed by the NCAA rules for his recruitment. His official visits and what the NCAA schools are allowed to offer him (both financially and what the coach can do during his visits) are limited by NCAA rules. When we visit NAIA schools the rules are very different. They are much more athlete friendly. That is a recurring theme. NAIA is athlete friendly and NCAA is not. Why? That doesn't make sense. NAIA schools are allowed to offer more financially and the coach is allowed to do much more during the recruiting process with the athlete. This allows the athlete (in this case, my son) to get the know the coach, players and school so much better. So much better for the student athlete. I've asked a lot of people I know and trust why this is and I get the same, recurring answer: the NCAA has draconian rules. The NCAA coaches we talk with bemoan the limitations put on them. I'm just anti-NCAA right now. This situation with SB doesn't make any sense to me either. I don't understand why the NCAA does the things they do. Sorry for getting off topic. Rant over. Interesting perspective. I think there should be rules governing the relationship between universities and professional leagues. The NCAA really has lost the plot though. It's just a morass of conflicting interests without principle that work in the real world. Universities are supposed to be serving students, and that includes student athletes as long as it doesn't interfere with their service to other students.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2022 15:28:59 GMT -5
Wow. What a great scrimmage. Glad I drove down! I will post my thoughts in a bit but impressive all around. Curious as to what an outsiders take is? Maybe I missed it but didn't see a followup comment to this....
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 26, 2022 15:52:52 GMT -5
Update from Shanel. If what she says here is true, it's entirely unclear what the basis of the NCAAs decision is, and how it can be reconciled with other NCAA decisions.
EDIT: Deleted. I did not see the post above.
|
|